<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Well . . .
Review: . . . the guy makes some good points, but when you get down to the actual scripture he doesn't really rebuff the "New Age" changes that Riplinger points out in her works. Those truly interested in this subject should check out Riplinger's replies to her critics (some are easy to find through a Google search).
Gail's responses show more evidence in her favor and point out that her critics' arguments keep changing as the old ones fall apart (White's original critiques no longer appear in his newer editions). I encourage you all to take in as much evidence as possible from both sides and weigh the merits of their arguments for yourselves.
I would not consider myself a KJV Onlyist. But as a cover-to-cover kind of guy, I have noticed that the NIV and NKJV are noticably lacking. I am not at all pleased with the changed meanings in several passages, nor am I overly concerned that the basic doctrines of Christianity have been changed by non-KJV English translations. However, I would like to point out to any saint and joint heir with Jesus Christ in the Kingdom of Heaven that they should know from the Revelations of Saint John the Divine how the doctrines of the church will be corrupted from within.
Rating: 
Summary: The Dangers of King James Onlyism
Review: I know first hand how dangerous King James Onlyism can be. Growing up, my dad insisted that all other versions were inferior to the King James Bible, so that's what I had to read. I wanted to read my Bible and learn what God wanted from me, but it was such a struggle to read it that I gave up! It isn't a matter of learning a few words and I'm not a person who has trouble reading, I've always scored high on reading tests. No, the problem with the King James Bible is that the English it uses isn't the same language as the English we use today. Similar, yes, but not the same. The beauty of the King James Bible when it first came out is that it used everyday language. Why shouldn't we have a Bible that uses today's language? When I started reading modern translations, what a difference it made!If you don't want to buy this book I reccommend you at least visit the evangelicaloutreach.org website and read the articles on the subject there, though getting this book too would be good.
Rating:
Summary: The Dangers of King James Onlyism
Review: I know first hand how dangerous King James Onlyism can be. Growing up, my dad insisted that all other versions were inferior to the King James Bible, so that's what I had to read. I wanted to read my Bible and learn what God wanted from me, but it was such a struggle to read it that I gave up! It isn't a matter of learning a few words and I'm not a person who has trouble reading, I've always scored high on reading tests. No, the problem with the King James Bible is that the English it uses isn't the same language as the English we use today. Similar, yes, but not the same. The beauty of the King James Bible when it first came out is that it used everyday language. Why shouldn't we have a Bible that uses today's language? When I started reading modern translations, what a difference it made! If you don't want to buy this book I reccommend you at least visit the evangelicaloutreach.org website and read the articles on the subject there, though getting this book too would be good.
Rating: 
Summary: Raises Serious Questions about KJV Onlyism
Review: In this booklet, Mr. Corner provides information to call into question the KJV Only movement. Various statements of Mrs. Riplinger are called into question. Corner sites various mistakes and inconsistencies in Riplinger's writings. He also shows various misleading quotes by Riplinger. Corner sites various bad translations of the Greek which appear in the KJV. Also, he shows where the NIV and NASB give a more accurate rendering. NIV examples are given which show a higher view of Christ than the KJV. This booklet also lists numerous words in the KJV which are now obsolete or whose meanings have changed. Corner states that the KJV is unduly influenced by Calvinism and Catholicism. The author points out that the KJV originally included the Apocrypha. Corner points out the dubious character of some of the people involved with creating the KJV. And the translators of the KJV even said that a variety of translations was profitable. This booklet can be read in only a few hours and is well worth it.
Rating:
Summary: A concise answer to a destructive heterodoxy
Review: Riplinger is one of the most vocal advocates of the heterodoxy that archaic KJV is the only Bible we should use. Many works have shown that she frequently indulges in misquotes and slanders, and has no qualifications in the original languages. People have been misled and the results have split churches. So it's good to have a concise answer to her claims, but a shame that such books had to be written. Her book NABV is full of circular reasoning, condmening modern translations should be condemned for "changing" or "omitting" things from the KJV. But this presupposes that the what has to be demonstrated, that KJV should be the standard, rather than the original Hebrew and Greek (none of the Bible's human authors spoke English, even the Jacobean variety, which seems to surpise some KJVOs ;) Therefore it is highly improper to claim that a criticism of the KJV is an attack on Biblical inerrancy, a doctrine strongly affirmed by the translators of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. Most KJV-only supporters are unaware that their so-called 1611 version is actually the significantly revised 1769 version of Benjamin Blayney of Oxford. There are many additional ironies -- the typical Independent Baptist KJVO pastor would *never* invite the KJV translators to speak in his pulpit if they were alive today, because they were Anglican baby spinklers. Also, I've known of Independent Baptists who show Riplinger's videos during their service, but would never have her speak in person because she's a woman. Ironically, the KJV translators were clearly *not* KJV-only! In their preface to their readers, they advocated a translation in the language that people spoke, commended a "variety of versions", distinguished the "originall" [sic] from copies, commended the New Testament writers for using the Septuagint, and emphatically disclaimed that their translation was perfect. The original KJV-1611 also contained the Apocrypha (accepted as Scripture by the Roman Catholics) and cross references to it without any disclaimer that they were not Scripture. In fact they even induded Apocryphal books in their Bible reading guide. Yet KJVO propaganda frequently accuses the modern versions of being part of a Roman Catholic plot! The original KJV also had 8000 footnotes, often dismissed as a diabolical addition in modern translations! The KJV also contains a number of paraphrases, e.g. "God forbid" where the word "God" is not in the Greek, yet KJVOs frequently claim that paraphrases are "diabolical". Since KJVOs frequently claim that the modern versions undermine the deity of Christ, it's handy to show that the modern versions are actually clearer in many places. For example, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the Granville Sharp rule shows that the correct translation is "... our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ ...". This rule was named after its discoverer, a Bible scholar and anti-slavery activist, who thought that the KJV's translation had obscured clear statementsof Christ's deity. But Riplinger dismisses this rule, which gives the inevitable impression that she's more interested in preserving the KJV than in clear teachings of vital doctrines.
Rating:
Summary: A concise answer to a destructive heterodoxy
Review: Riplinger is one of the most vocal advocates of the heterodoxy that archaic KJV is the only Bible we should use. Many works have shown that she frequently indulges in misquotes and slanders, and has no qualifications in the original languages. People have been misled and the results have split churches. So it's good to have a concise answer to her claims, but a shame that such books had to be written. Her book NABV is full of circular reasoning, condmening modern translations should be condemned for "changing" or "omitting" things from the KJV. But this presupposes that the what has to be demonstrated, that KJV should be the standard, rather than the original Hebrew and Greek (none of the Bible's human authors spoke English, even the Jacobean variety, which seems to surpise some KJVOs ;) Therefore it is highly improper to claim that a criticism of the KJV is an attack on Biblical inerrancy, a doctrine strongly affirmed by the translators of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. Most KJV-only supporters are unaware that their so-called 1611 version is actually the significantly revised 1769 version of Benjamin Blayney of Oxford. There are many additional ironies -- the typical Independent Baptist KJVO pastor would *never* invite the KJV translators to speak in his pulpit if they were alive today, because they were Anglican baby spinklers. Also, I've known of Independent Baptists who show Riplinger's videos during their service, but would never have her speak in person because she's a woman. Ironically, the KJV translators were clearly *not* KJV-only! In their preface to their readers, they advocated a translation in the language that people spoke, commended a "variety of versions", distinguished the "originall" [sic] from copies, commended the New Testament writers for using the Septuagint, and emphatically disclaimed that their translation was perfect. The original KJV-1611 also contained the Apocrypha (accepted as Scripture by the Roman Catholics) and cross references to it without any disclaimer that they were not Scripture. In fact they even induded Apocryphal books in their Bible reading guide. Yet KJVO propaganda frequently accuses the modern versions of being part of a Roman Catholic plot! The original KJV also had 8000 footnotes, often dismissed as a diabolical addition in modern translations! The KJV also contains a number of paraphrases, e.g. "God forbid" where the word "God" is not in the Greek, yet KJVOs frequently claim that paraphrases are "diabolical". Since KJVOs frequently claim that the modern versions undermine the deity of Christ, it's handy to show that the modern versions are actually clearer in many places. For example, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the Granville Sharp rule shows that the correct translation is "... our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ ...". This rule was named after its discoverer, a Bible scholar and anti-slavery activist, who thought that the KJV's translation had obscured clear statementsof Christ's deity. But Riplinger dismisses this rule, which gives the inevitable impression that she's more interested in preserving the KJV than in clear teachings of vital doctrines.
Rating:
Summary: Sheds Welcome Light on Troubled Waters
Review: This is a small, but excellent book that sheds important light on the Riplinger madness that has been in full swing since her book, "New Age Bible Versions" appeared. The author here goes into little known facts about the King James Version of the Bible that need to be brought out, proving that it just did not drop from Heaven in 1611, and all Christians before that date were in darkness and ignorance, and everything since is worthless and a travesty. People need to realize that their tunnel-visioned "worship" of the KJV and rejection of honest, good, formal equivalence translations is splitting churches wide apart and making those not informed confused and causing them to doubt the Word of God written. Even the KJV translators called the poorest and weakest translations the Word of God. This small book will help people understand, and hopefully, open some minds that are terribly narrow or closed. If it succeeds in doing that, it has achieved its purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Sheds Welcome Light on Troubled Waters
Review: This is a small, but excellent book that sheds important light on the Riplinger madness that has been in full swing since her book, "New Age Bible Versions" appeared. The author here goes into little known facts about the King James Version of the Bible that need to be brought out, proving that it just did not drop from Heaven in 1611, and all Christians before that date were in darkness and ignorance, and everything since is worthless and a travesty. People need to realize that their tunnel-visioned "worship" of the KJV and rejection of honest, good, formal equivalence translations is splitting churches wide apart and making those not informed confused and causing them to doubt the Word of God written. Even the KJV translators called the poorest and weakest translations the Word of God. This small book will help people understand, and hopefully, open some minds that are terribly narrow or closed. If it succeeds in doing that, it has achieved its purpose.
<< 1 >>
|
